The interior is only a little bit lack of contrast and premium feel compared to A7, but still gives a great feel combined with the new infotainment system. Would definitely choose if it has a S or RS version of this.

Mmmm. Not really. There are a lot of variables in where transmission is (or thinking about nowadays) at that 5 mph figure, and any electric motor assisted vehicle will have a slight edge.

Also, 95% of drivers don't drag race at all (as you point out).

If you want a figure that show real world acceleration, like passing or keeping speed up a hill (which most drivers do), look at the 30-50 and 50-70 figures which compared to the MDX are almost identical, not slower.

Mmmm. Not really. There are a lot of variables in where transmission is (or thinking about nowadays) at that 5 mph figure, and any electric motor assisted vehicle will have a slight edge.

Also, 95% of drivers don't drag race at all (as you point out).

If you want a figure that show real world acceleration, like passing or keeping speed up a hill (which most drivers do), look at the 30-50 and 50-70 figures which compared to the MDX are almost identical, not slower.

Well, I disagree that most people don't accelerate briskly from a stop - at least sometimes. What most people don't do is power launch by revving the engine prior to take off. That is what shreds transmissions and tires.

So, the Acura is faster in that regard....similar in the 50-70, etc. (and skidpad/handling). And that's a surprise, because this Audi is supposed to have a lot more HP...and it's over $20K more.

Its only a single turbo, which could be why, but its times are there with other twin turbo units. Might be the transmission gearing. Audi tends to gear them for fuel economy, even in higher performance variants

Just about everyone on the West Side Highway any time of the day or night. No rational reason, and it's hell on the brakes, which is why you never buy a CPO Anything that's been driven in NYC for the first three years of it's useful life.

I think the 5-60 test must be performed by a C & D driver who grew up on the West Side.

That 5-60 mph test is garbage, and your assertion that drivers who accelerate hard from a dead stop will ruin their transmissions is a land fill.

Car and Driver would be well suited, as I've mentioned to them before to dump the 5-60 mph test. Who the F rolls away from a light and then at 5 mph floors it.

How about 0-60 mph test (the fastest way they can, brake torquing or whatever is necessary, then do a 0-60 test by simply mashing the throttle. THEN you can compare a full on launch 0-60 and what a vehicle can do with the way most owners would do short of a drag strip.

I never said that all drivers who accelerate hard from a dead stop will ruin their transmissions. But you can do damage (and burn up tires) if you rev the engine and power launch it.

Your discussion of brake torquing indicates that you are familiar with the tricks done to get these 0-60 times. It isn't simply flooring it from 0. Some other publications don't do that stuff, but C&D has stated that is why they have a 5-60...it is to eliminate the tire scorching launches, and show what most drivers will get.

That 5-60 mph test is garbage, and your assertion that drivers who accelerate hard from a dead stop will ruin their transmissions is a land fill.

Car and Driver would be well suited, as I've mentioned to them before to dump the 5-60 mph test. Who the F rolls away from a light and then at 5 mph floors it.

How about 0-60 mph test (the fastest way they can, brake torquing or whatever is necessary, then do a 0-60 test by simply mashing the throttle. THEN you can compare a full on launch 0-60 and what a vehicle can do with the way most owners would do short of a drag strip.

Hint: You can compare 5-60 MPH times even if your acceleration run starts at 0 MPH. Computers.

Double-hint: I find this to be the most useful acceleration statistic because it reveals real-world acceleration capability, and eliminates things you don't do on the street.

That 5-60 mph test is garbage, and your assertion that drivers who accelerate hard from a dead stop will ruin their transmissions is a land fill.

Car and Driver would be well suited, as I've mentioned to them before to dump the 5-60 mph test. Who the F rolls away from a light and then at 5 mph floors it.

How about 0-60 mph test (the fastest way they can, brake torquing or whatever is necessary, then do a 0-60 test by simply mashing the throttle. THEN you can compare a full on launch 0-60 and what a vehicle can do with the way most owners would do short of a drag strip.

A 0-60 mph time by simply mashing throttle after releasing the brake would take even more time than 5-60 mph with the same technique, but have at it.

I am very interested in 0 to 60 times. Oftentimes you see people all lined up in the left lane of a two lane road in front of a red light just because some FedEx driver parked in the right lane right behind the intersection. I pass everyone in the right lane, accelerate when it`s green and make it into the left lane in front of everyone else. And, thanks to quattro, this works in the rain too. No worries about tires: Traction control is on.

I like it even though it's a tad pricey - might have to trade in my Q7 for it. Some lady in my subdivision drives a black one and it actually looks better live. 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds and 28 mpg highway is an unbeatable combination. That's the big advantage of turbo over supercharger. Talk about eating your cake and having it too.

Surprised to read that the standard suspension delivered a good ride with the 22s. I guess that means you can skip the adaptive air suspension - especially if you opt for the "standard" 21s? I know magazines always insisted that the Q7 needed it.

I'd love to see a comparison between this, the Cayenne, and the Range Rover Sport Dynamic (Maybe the X5 as well, but I'd leave out the X6 and GLE until their replacements arrive).

It also wouldn't hurt to compare this to an A6/A7 and determine whether Audi is still dedicated to their sedans. I'm starting to notice some automakers are neglecting their sedans while continually improving their bread and butter SUVs - hopefully that's not the case but it makes sense to focus on what sells I suppose.

Audi purposefully won't give this the 4.0 V8 engine because then it'd be a Urus at less than half the price.

Losing the A6/A8 to this is inevitable as those are luxury sedans and SUV's are more luxurious just by the virtue of their seating positions.

The A8 4.0T is definitely a sleeper! Perhaps they'll stick that engine in the SQ8 (I am sure they will not miss the chance to make more $$$$ with that version, charge more than an A8 for the same engine).

Looking at "real" (for-sale) Q8's, this thing is horrible. The white-on-black version - for $72k - looks like a $28k Dodge Charger station wagon (colors, wheels and all).
I can't help but think this will be Audi's version of the Acura ZDX - that is, an epic sales failure.

Anyway I find unfair that in germany the Q7/Q8 6 cylinders are available with some tech like carboceramic brakes, sport exhaust and active anti-roll bars that are not available in north america. Bmw and mercedes don't bother to offer many of those in the X5 and GLE 450 on their home country neither.

I switched from sedans to SUVs a few years ago, and this is yet another example of why it makes sense. This will be a great-looking vehicle that does all that a sedan does and yet add a whole layer of practicality.

But SUVs do not do all that sedans do. On an equal basis, (using the same platform and engine), a sedan will be faster, handle better, and get better gas mileage. You will be hard pressed to find an exception.

But SUVs do not do all that sedans do. On an equal basis, (using the same platform and engine), a sedan will be faster, handle better, and get better gas mileage. You will be hard pressed to find an exception.

That becomes irrelevant once you go large. Large sedans will always prioritize luxury over sport, because if you really wanted sport, you would go smaller and lighter, so I'd take a Q8 over an A8 any day of the week. Most people would also choose the same way as the market shows.

That becomes irrelevant once you go large. Large sedans will always prioritize luxury over sport, because if you really wanted sport, you would go smaller and lighter, so I'd take a Q8 over an A8 any day of the week. Most people would also choose the same way as the market shows.

I agree with you in regard to large SUVs and cars. (Yet it applies less to this, as it has much less cargo and passenger space than the Q7, sloping rooflines and as C&D said, it has loudly announced sporting intentions.)

I was responding to the comment that an SUV can do everything a sedan does...which is not true, regardless of size.

A car of the same brand with the same platform and engine will out accelerate the heavier SUV and get better gas mileage. (Like the A8 vs. the Q8) And regardless of whether you are interested in sporty dynamics, going around a corner without body roll (where everyone's heads lean with the turn) is something even most luxury buyers want.

It seems overall well sorted, if overweight. I can see this stealing some Porsche Cayenne sales as well. Plus its also nice to see the floating screen gone here, as with the new Q3 as well. However, I am surprised that Audi only uses a single turbo with the 3.0L V-6, although it does make good power still. Overall, seems well rounded but I wonder if buyers would still just choose the cheaper and smaller SQ5 or even Macan instead

I see that Audi is trying to copy the Land Rover velar with the two screen approach, but climate control should always be physical buttons. A car should have a certain amount of fixed button so you can memorize the cabin and fidget with the controls without taking your eyes of the road. Increasing the fan speed is just as distracting as using a CEll phone while driving in these new cars.